And next it says how Jordan told him to go and get twenty bodies of the people he had just shot; and 10 says that Jordan asked for 530 intellectuals to work on archives; he was told they were not available. "Thereupon the SA (assisted by others in German uniform which I cannot identify for certain but I think it was SD) seized and shot 530 people at random. The SA personnel present included Jordan, Peschl and Lenzen. My Lord, that is Kaunas. is Schaulen, which your Lordship will find in document D-969 at Page 63 in the same document book. It becomes GB-600 and is an affidavit by a deponent, Leib Kibart. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Schroepfer, S-c-h-r-o-e-p-f-e-r?
Q Did you know an SA Sturmfuehrer called Bub, B-u-b?
Q Did you know a man in the SA whose rank, unfortunately, I haven't got, called Gewecke, G-e-w-e-c-k-e, who became District Commissioner for this area 130 miles south of Riga?
A That is equally unknown to me. The district commissioners, in fact all commissioners, were not employed by the SA. They were furnished by the Ministry for Eastern Affairs and we had no influence on it. remember if you know him. There is no doubt that he exists, We have got captured, documents signed by him. But I want to know, did you know him, Geweck because you are stating that I did not know Kramer and Lenzen and I didn't say that. I merely said -
Q I didn't say that, Witness, and don't let's have any misunderstanding. I was just making quite sure by informing you that there was no doubt that Gewecke was there because his name appears in captured documents, and I wanted you to be quite sure you didn't know him before you gave your answer. You didn't know him?
A No, I didn't know him.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, then I will again state quite shortl In the first two paragraphs the deponent says that he is a leather worker and where he was working. In the third he says that he was cursed and beaten by the SA when he was at work. Then in paragraph 4 he says that Schroepfer was there first and afterwards Bub. And in 5 he said: "It is hard to judge, but I estimate that there must have been 700 to 800 SA men there at the beginning, but they decreased in numbers later. I knew them as SA because they were brow, uniform with Swastika armlets. Later on they often used other Germans in the locality as auxiliaries." Then in 6 he says: "There were 4,500 Jews in the Ghetto, which was very overcrowded. In August 1941 the SA therefore surrounded the whole Ghetto, and numbers of them went into the houses and took out women, children and old men, and put them into lorries land drove them away. I saw all this myself. It was done exclusively by SA. I saw them take children by the hair and throw them into the lorries. I did not see what happened to them but a Lithuanian told me afterwards that they had been driven twenty kilometers away and shot. He said he had seen the SA make them undress and then shoot the with automatic pistols." Then paragraph 7 says they were shot if they took food into the Ghetto and describes the shooting of a master baker who had four or five cigarettes and some sausage and the hanging of this baker. Then paragraph 8 deals with Gewecke, and My Lord, I ask the Tribunal to note: "The District Commissioner in whose courtyard I worked was called Gewecke. I saw his every day. He was in the SA. The SS took over from the SA in September 1943, and the Ghetto then became a working camp." you will see a report from Gewecke -- from Schaulen. My Lord, that is document 3661-PS, which will become GB-601. It is dated the 8th of September, 1941, from Schaulen, where he was Regional Commissioner, to the Reich Commissar for the Eastland (Ostland). My Lord, I understood -- I may be wrong -- that Ostland included Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia only, but that is the position. This is a complaint about an SS Standartenfuehrer called Jeager coming into Schaulen's activities, and after explaining that he had managed to acquire -or rather, that his agent had been acquiring some Jewish silver and gold articles, he then says -- My Lord, this fresh incident merely demonstrates that Jaeger does not consider himself bound by the instructions issued by the Reich Commissar and by the Regional Commissar regarding the seizure of Jewish property and that he meddled in matters -
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, may I interrupt? This document which is now being presented refers to an SS Standartenfuehrer Jaeger, and I don't think the case of the SS is being discussed. I should therefore like to have the document discussed when the case of the SS is being discussed, because it has nothing to do with the SA.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, the evidence is that the signatory of this document is a member of the SA. He was acting as commissioner, and my friend can make what argument he likes on that. He was a member of the SA and here he is protesting against the SS coming in and taking Jewish property, exactly the thing which the evidence states the SA have been doing in this area. My Lord, that is why I submit the document, as a useful corroboration.
DR. BOEHM: This man was not employed as a member of the SA in that territory where he worked as a commissar.
THE PRESIDENT: We have just had evidence that he was and the witness in the box says he doesn't know, so I don't know on what authority you say that he was not.
DR. BOEHM: It may be that he had been one, but he wasn't there in his capacity as a member of the SA: he was there as a member of the Ministry for Eastern Affairs. The SA wasn't doing anything; they were not employing people there.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter which the Tribunal has got to consider. We will consider the evidence of this witness, who says there was no SA in the particular place at the time. We will also consider the evidence of the deponent in the affidavit, who says that this man Gewecke was there in SA uniform with a lot of other SA men. That doesn't make this document inadmissible, which is a captured document.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Lord, the next paragraph is the only matter which I want to trouble the Tribunal with: "If the SS continues to overreach itself in this fashion, I, as Regional Commissar, must refuse to accept responsibility for the orderly confiscation (Erfassung) of Jewish property."
THE PRESIDENT: Now I suppose that Dr. Boehm's argument upon that would be that this witness, Gewecke, was acting as Regional Commissioner and not as an agent of the SS.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: My Lord, that is a perfectly proper argument for Dr. Boehm to make. Of course it is important, when your Lordship has these affidavits in which this man is dealt with, that one should be able to tie it in with a captured document. That is really what I wanted to do. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: a moment. You said that the only SA organization in this area was a unit former by the Defendant Frank in the Government General, I think in April, 1942; the the SA unit of the Government General was formed under the orders of Lutze and the command was taken over by the Defendant Frank. That is right, isn't it? And you said that he had a special staff for the actual carrying on of the unit which, I think, was in the hands of two men called Selz and Friedemun if I caught your evidence right. Is that so?
A No, it isn't correct that way. First of all, those were not the name:
Q If those are not the names, please blame me. I took them down as I understood them. You tell us the right names. It is my fault entirely if I he got them wrong. What were the names?
A I was just going to finish my sentence. The right names were Pelz and Kuehnemund, and this leadership staff was not under the jurisdiction of the former Governor General Frank. They were directly under the Chief of Staff he was issuing the orders for them. Frank had merely been appointed as the leader of the SA in the way I have already described. As to the other affidavits, I may, I hope, have an opportunity to state my views later. Otherwise -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, Your Lordship will find -- it is in evidence, in 3216-PS, US Exhibit 424, the extract from "Das Archiv", giving that foundation of the unit in the Government General. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:
Q What I want you to tell the Tribunal, Witness, is: What was the purpose of forming a unit in the Government General?
A There were two purposes; but first of all, may I put a question with reference to the affidavits of Kovno, Schaulen and Riga, that I shall have to continue to make a statement which is necessary to discover the truth, and I wanted to ask whether I may do so now or whether I can do so after the question you have put has been answered?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that it will be better for your counsel to put questions to you in re-examination upon that evidence. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: of forming a unit of the SA in the Government General in 1942?
A. There were two purposes. First of all, the Reich Germans who were working in the Fovernment General should be kept together in a comradely way, as far as they were members of the SA, and certain people of German origin, who were inclined, should later join the SA, and should be brought into the community and fitted into it by teaching German customs, the German language, etc., and bring it nearer to them; and also demonstrate to them the comradeship exercised in the SA.
Q. I want to get that clear. You said, it was an entirely peaceful purpose in the Government General. Do you adhere to what you have told the Tribunal that there were no other SA formations operating in the eastern territories, and particularly, I ask you about the territory Ostland, that is, as I understand it, including the old countries of Lithuania, Esthonia and Latvia.. I have already put certain evidence to you, but I want to get this clear. Are prepared for your proof, to be judged on the fact -- on your answer to this question: Do you say that there were no SA units operating in Ostland?
A. I am prepared to answer that question absolutely clearly. The highest leaders of the SA in this territory Ostland, which you have just described by saying Lithuania and Esthonia, did not organize a SA there. A German SA was not formed there. If an SA was being formed there, or supposed to have been formed there, then it was a will organization which had nothing to do wit the SA leadership, and nothing is known to me, namely, that the SA had some organization there.
Q. That's your answer. My Lord. I wonder if the Tribunal would look for a moment just at a part of the document 1475-PS, which is also R-135, and it is Document Book 16-B, page 81, United States Exhibit 289 -- My Lord, it comes just after page 81 in the Book. It's 81-A. It should be. My Lord, would you give the witness a copy? My Lord, that is the protest of the Reichkommissar for Ostland to the Defendant Rosenberg, and the Tribunal is probably familiar with that bit. The first page is a protest against killing off so many Jews in the "Cottbus" project because they would have been useful for slave labor, and, in any case, the locking of men, women and children into barns and setting fire to them doesn't appear to be a suitable method for combat bands.
That is the effect of that. Now, My Lord, there is a catch to that. On the next page, the report of the 5th of June, 1943, from the General Kommissar of White Ruthenia to the defendant Rosenberg, through the Reich Commissioner for Eastland, and my Lord, it may be that the territory is slightly out of that mentioned, but at any rate, I'll make it perfectly clear. My Lord, it begins by saying "The result of the operation, 4,500 enemy dead and 5,000 dead, suspected of belonging to bands, who apparently were the people who had been looked up and burned in barns." Then, My Lord, below it gives the booty, and then the next paragraph: "The operation affects the territory of the general District of White Ruthenia in the area of Borissow. It concerns in particular the two counties of Begomie and Pleschtschamizy. At present, the police troops, together with the army, have advanced to Lake Palik, and have reached the whole front of the Beresina. To continuance of the battles takes place in the rear zone of the army." from 4,500 enemy dead. Now, my Lord, it is the next sentence: "By order of the Chief of Band-Combatting, SS Obergruppenfuehrer von dem Bach" -- my Lord, that is the officer who gave evidence before the Tribunal some months ago -"units of the--" Witness, I ask you to note this: "Units of the Wehrmannschaften have also participated in the operation. SA Standartenfuehrer Kunze was in command of the Wehrmannschaften." Now, Witness, are you going to tell the Tribunal that the SA Wehrmannschaften were not a section of the SA and that the Standartenfuehrer Kommissar was not operating as a member of the SA?
A. Yes, I should like very much to answer that, very clearly. First of all, it doesn't say "Wehrmannschaften SA". It says "Wehrmannschaften".
Q. Just a moment, Are you suggesting that Wehrmannschaften doesn't mean SA Wehrmannschaften? That it is not a unit of the SA -- is that your answer?
A. In this particular ease, they were not units of the SA. That I am stating with all certainty. They were not SA people. They were not formed by the SA. They were not trained by the SA. If such Wehrmannschaften existed there at all, and the SA Standartenfuehrer Commissioner supposedly led the Wehrmannschaften formed there, the he certainly didn't lead them in his capacity as SA leader, but in the framework of the eastern administration.
Q. But he was in command of the Wehrmannschaften. Are you saying that when you have got a well-known SA formation, the Wehrmannschaften commanded by a SA Standartenfuehrer, you are telling the Tribunal that they weren't operating as SA at all, is that your evidence? You really ask the Tribunal to believe that? All right, I am putting another document to you, my Lord. I will ready another document to you, my Lord. If you will turn to Page-64-A, you will find --
This I do not. I have something to say about this to the Tribunal. That was a fact. Wehrmannschaften is a very definite conception. There were Wehrmannschaften elsewhere too, which had nothing to do with the SA either, and apparently here we are concerned with such a case. We did not have any Wehrmannschaften there. The Standartenfuehrer Commissioner was not acting as an SA leader when he was there. As far as the loading, and as far as the organization is concerned, the events at Schaulen, Riga and Kovno had nothing whatsoever to do with these things.
Q. No, witness, just do be colorful before you answer this: Do you say that there were no SA Einsatz Commanders securing forced labor inside the Government General? That is a perfectly simple question. Do you say that there were no SA Einsatz Commanders collecting forced labor inside the Government General?
A. The SA didn't. No Einsatz commanders at all.
Q. Now, I suggest to you -
A. SA leadership that is.
Q. I will ask you to look as Document D-970, my Lord; that will become GB-602, and your Lordship will find, it at page 64-A. My Lord, this is a report to the defendant Frank, as Government General, dated the 25th of September, 1944. The subject is: The Priority of the Carmelite Monastery of Czerna, who was shot at by one of the SA Einsatz Commanders mentioned. Let me put it this way. "The incident under consideration took place within the framework of the action for obtaining people for the carrying out of special building plans in the district of Ilkenau.
It came to the knowledge of the sub-Regional Commander of the Security Police and SD in Cracow via the branch office of Kressendorf and the strong point of Wolbron. As the place where the deed was committed lies within the area of the Einstazstab of Ilkenau, the investigation were carried out by the Regional State Police Headquarters at Kattowitz -branch post Ilkenau. The results of the investigations provided the following facts: area in question within the period laid down, was made doubtful by the fact that the various communities did not provide the number of workers imposed on them. ment composed of 12 SA men orders to bring in workers from the various villages The execution of this task by this SA Einsatzkommando was in any case carried out by them in such a way that they first approached the village beadle and presented the demand. Then it goes on to describe how when it was refused, they searched the houses. Some of the inhabitants offered resistance when the houses were searched, and these had to be broken by the use of arms. "In view of the fact that partisans has several times appeared in this area during recent times, the SA men reckoned that partisans were living in the villages during the day disguised as civilians. Besides this, when workers were obtained, the local conditions were taken into account." That's the first one, collecting forced labor from this village.
Now we have an other SA Commando :
"The Prior of Czerna Monastery was seized by members of the SA Einsatzkommando in Nowojewa Gora. He was told to remain with the lien of the SA Einsatzkommando for the time being. While the members of the detachment were in a house in order to search it for workers, the prior--according to what the Regional State Police Headquarters Kattowitz established--used this opportunity, which seemed suitable to him, to escape. As he did not stop when shouted at several times and after some warning shots-had been fired, but on the contrary, rah even faster and tried to escape, arms were used.
"The Prior had been arrested because he was alleged to have made negative statements to other workers about the Ostwall -Eastern Defensive Line-- and the building undertaking, which tended to influence the laborers' already weak will to work in a still more unfavorable manner. It was intended to take the priest first to the construction staff at Nielepiece and from there to the office of the Security Police." at Kattowitz, steps are to be taken to insure that in future such operations are carried out by SA men but by police officials." ago that there weren't any SA Einsatzkommandos and that they never searches for forced labor in the Government General? Why did you say that; you know it was untrue, why did you say it?
A. That is not untrue. I Will repeat my testimony once again, and I stick to it, namely that the SA did not have Einsatzkommandos. These SA men here were probably called in by the source furnishing this report, and they were under cumpulsory service -I have no other explanation-- in the capacity of auxiliary policeman The reporters source merely describes the auxiliary police units, and describes them as Einsatzkommandos, which is a wrong usage of the language. As far as we are concerned, we did not invent that designation and we did not have such units or such formations.
carried out was not that of the SA, but of the department sending these men over. departments in the government generals were concerned, we have had repeated objections against the repeated use of SA men for police duties. We did not want to have the SA carrying out police duties, but they were called in periodically, on the basis of legal and lawful regulations, and used for police work. If they say that in the future SA men are no longer to be used, but police officials, then this merely means quite clearly that not auxiliary policemen are to be used, but policemen proper. doing this work, and have also objected to the brutal methods with which they carried it out. do know that SA men were being used as auxiliary police in the Government General? Is that what you are telling the Tribunal? reports that, based on legal regulations, SA men had been used for police service.
How I want you to tell me this. You said, in your report on the war, that the SA had been used regarding prisoners of war. Didn't the SA also guard forced labor camps? have guarded labor camps. camps which suggest you guarded :
Jews; Nechtau; Markstadt; Littau; Fallberg; Reichenau; and Annaber connection with labor camps.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Wour Lordship will find, at page 131 of to book 16-B, an affidavit of Rudolf schoenberg. That will be OB-601, My Lord. He speaks of the S-- guarding those camps, and of the conditions. He finishes by saying : "All I wish to say here is that the SA in no way lagged behind the SS in their murderous and criminal methods at that time already", which, was in 1946. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE :
Q Let no put another points to you. Do you remember the SA guarding a labor camp at Frauenberg, near Adment? That was a labor came for skirkers and drunkards, of about 300 prisoners. Do you remember the SA guarding that?
A That is completely unknown to me. I have never heard about it; I never heard of it. is a personal report to Himmler. Now just have a look at it.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE : My Lord, it has a certain melancholy interest in that it deals with the selection of Auschwitz as a concentration camp. only on this one point-- I be your pardon, My Lord, the affidavit should, have been number GB-603, and this is Exhibit 604.
(Continuing) How, will you look at that?
THE PRESIDENT : What page is it on?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE : I am sorry, Lord, page 132, the next page. That is a report from an SS Oberfuehrer called Gluecks, whose name I think we are not unfamiliar with. It is a report to Himmler of the 21rst of February, 1940, in which the man Gluecks deals with five possible concentration camps which Himmler might consider using, or rather, six possible concentration camps.
The third of these is a place called Frauenberg, and he says:
"Frauenberg is a labor camp set up by the Provincial welfare Union of Styria for shirkers and drunkards. It consists of five wooden huts and can take 300 prisoners.
"The Labor prisoners are exclusively Styrians who are paid for their work by the Provincial welfare Union of Styria during their time in the camp--27 to 57 pfennis an hour, less food.
"The SA-- about 20 men-- do the guarding. The labor prisoners are employed in two quarries and on building roads," Then it says : "The whole place is now state property; formerly it belonged to the Admont Foundation."
BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: guarding a labor camp, and you, the Deputy Chief of Satff, would know nothing about the fact that SA men were employed in labor camps? How could you be ignora of these facts? Just explain to the Tribunal; how could you be ignorant? auxiliary policemen, and that is the way they acted. Just as NSKK men, or any other citizens, ware under the legal obligation of having to serve, SA men, on the strength of existing laws, could be signed up as auxiliary policemen. That was a measure of the state, which had nothing to do with the SA and which could not be influenced by the SA, and of which the SA couldn't know anything either. It was impossible for the SA leadership to be informed of the fate of every individual man, as it is being expressed in your question. That is quite out of the question They weren't SA men, they were serving for the police, and that is all. during the war years. condition where they could do these pieces of work.
Do you deny that the SA was the bearer of the military thought of Germany?
A Such questions were put to me during interrogations. You are mixing up defensive military thoughts with military thoughts. The SA were the bearers of the Wehrgedanken (defense thoughts). and that had nothing to do with military police or military training. spirit, do you? in 1939, put the two things together so strongly?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: My Lord, it is only a short reference from a document that is already in: 3215-PS which is United States Exhibit 426, and, My Lord, it in the original SA document book.
Q (Continuing); This is an article by Lutze, as head of the SA, on SA military training, dated the 11th of March, 1939, and he says:
"The men never forgot the mission of the Fuehrer to require the military training of the German men and to reconstruct the military spirit of the German people." And he quotes the very well known passage from Mein Kampf which I am sure, witness, you know by heart:
"The sport troop of the SA shall be the bearer of the military thought of a free people."
And he gives Hitler's words:
"Give the German Nation six million perfectly trained bodies in sport, all fanatically inspired with love for the Fatherland, and trained to the highest offensive spirit."
In a sentence, aren't these words of your chief Lutze the spirit and aim under which you worked to train the SA from 1934 to 1939? trial, sometimes doesn't know the difference between the defensive spirit and military training, or still hasn't discovered it. That had been discussed in detail during interrogations before the Commission. Lutze did not write about military training; he wrote about defensive education, which is something quite different from military training.
We did what every country expects from its patriots. We had a physical and model training of human beings, and nothing more. But no preparation for war. as you are trying to put it to me, was the case. the SA command was ordering no publicity about technical, signal, and motorized companies or separate air wings, "because they may be taken as an infringement of Versailles."
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFFE: My Lord, that is document D-44, USA 4288; that is the first document in the book, MY Lord.
Q (Continuing) Why was your leadership such that what the SA was doing in the way of these technical units would be construed as an infringement of Versailles, and any publicity was to endanger the person publicizing it with prosecution for high treason, if you wern't doing military training?
sion. That order was connected with the military intent on the part of Roehm and the details must become apparent from the record and if your Lordship wishes no to do so, I shall repeat what I spoke into the record there.
THE PRESIDENT: Just answer the question. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: tion of technical units would be considered an infringement of the Treaty of Versailles if they were not military ?
A Roehm's negotiations with foreign states hadn't been concluded and consequently, soma false suspicion might have arisen. in May 1933 that the Supreme SA command should combine reppresentation with the Party on the Reich Defense Council ? Why were you to be represented on the Reich Defense Council if you weren't conducting military training?
My Lord, that is, I think, a new document. It is 2822PS, and it becomes GB-605. That document was never put in but your Lordship will find it in the old SA document. I am afraid that is not the page but it is in No. 2822-PS. It is "Strictly Confidential," dated the 26th of May 1933. From the Chief of Ministerial Office in the War Department to the Supreme SA Command. Your Lordship, it is very short. It is from von Reichenau. I don't know what his rank was then. I think he was a General or a Fieldmarshal after.
"In addition to my letter of 22 May 1933, may I bring to your attention that the desire has been transmitted to me from the defense-policy bureau of the NSDAP to be also represented in the Reich's Defense Council.
"I want to submit for consideration that representation be combined in personal union with the representation of the Supreme SA Command that possibly one suitable person be charg ed with, both representations."
to be represented on the Reich Defense Council if it was not doing military training ? has nothing whatever to do with military training. At that time, and that again, I said before the Commission, that was for the event that we could not pay the reparation costs and for the event that marches and invasions in the west had to be expected, which proposed that the left bank of the Rhine should be cleared of all Germans capable of doing military service and this clearing out, that meant handing over to the SA through the Party--and as far as that is concerned, the SA and the party were both interested in seeing to it that this should be discussed in the Reich Defense Council.
DR. BOEHM: Mr. President, may I disturb you for a moment ? This document contains a confirmation of the fact that this was turned down by Roehm. I think it would be useful to put that to the witness, too, that it Was turned down. It says here: "To Krueger--No, I talked to Reichenau about it", and signed "Roehm." That means he turned it down.
THE PRESIDENT: We had better adjourn now, I think.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 15 August, at 1000 hours.)
THE PRESIDENT: Sir David, I have one or two announcements to make. I Tribunal will sit in closed session this afternoon. There will be no open session after one o'clock today. The Tribunal will not sit in open session on Saturday. admitted.
Request has been made to the Tribunal that the report of Col. Neave be made available to counsel for the SS. The Tribunal has requested Col. Neave to prepare for its assistance summaries of the evidence of witnesses heard before the Commission and a report grouping the testimony of the witnesses before the Commission with respect to the points on which they have given evidence. These summaries and the report mentioned are not parts of the record and are not accorded any evidential value by the Tribunal, which has before it, and will consider, the transcript of the entire evidence before the Commission. Counsel for the organizations and counsel for the Prosecution may see these documents and may comment on them in their arguments with the time heregofore allowed, but the Tribunal-will not grant any dealy or any additional time for argument with regard to them.
The Tribunal has also received an application that Dr. Klafisch might make a speech on the law with reference to the organizations, and a speech in writing has been deposited with the Tribunal on behalf of Dr. Klafisch. The Tribunal does not propose to hear an additional speech on behalf of the organizations, but it will consider the speech in writing which has been deposited by Dr. Klafisch.
I now turn to a completely different subject. The Tribunal has been informed that some of the defendants have deposited long statements for translation by the translation division.
There is no necessity for the defendants' statements to be translated and the will not be translated by the translation division. The Tribunal draws the attention of the defendants and their counsel to the order of 23 July 1946 which was in the following terms : "In view of the full statements already made by the defendants and their counsel, the Tribunal assumes that if it is the desire of the defendants to make any further statements, it will be on to deal with matters previously omitted. The defendants will not be permit to make further speeches or to repeat what has already been said by themselves or their counsel, but will be limited to statements of a few minutes each to cover matters not already covered by their testimony or the arguments of counsel." The Tribunal will adhere strictly to this order, and the defendants will not be allowed to make statements which last longer than, as the order says, "a few minutes." These statements will be made by the defendants from their places in the dock.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the affidavit of the Polish priest which your Lordship referred to, is document 4043 PS, and now becomes GB 606. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: of Roehm on the document 2822 PS, which was a memo from General von Reichenau to the Supreme SA Command.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, it is in document book "Y", the original document book. BY SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: "The desire has been transmitted to me from the Defense Policy Bureau of the Party to be also represented in the Reich Defense Counsel." He goes on to say, "I want to submit for consideration that this representation be combined in personal union with the representation of the Supreme SA Command, that possibly one suitable person be charged with both representations." that there was nothing military in the wishes of the SA. Are these the words Follow and see that I got them right. "An Krueger, nein, Hit Reichenau am --" and then the Figures -- "16 and 11, erortert also vertreter," then, "O, B, S, A, F." I will repeat that, "O, B, S, A, F, Krueger." Does that mean that the two parties of the representation are not to be combined, or agreed with Reichenau on the 16th of the 11th, that the representative of the Supreme SA-leadership is Krueger. In other words, that Krueger was to represent the SA-leadership on the Reichs Defense Counsel. Isn't that what Roehm has written?
Q First of all, answer my question. Isn't that what's there, that Krueger is to be the representative of the SA-leadership on the Reich Defense Counsel? which showed that the SA were not connected with military matters. It shows they were represented directly on the Reichs Defense Counsel, doesn't it?